TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

A different kind of abortion debate.

Go To

TheMightyAnonym PARTY HARD!!!! from Pony Chan Since: Jan, 2010
PARTY HARD!!!!
#1: Jan 21st 2011 at 10:39:30 AM

OK, I recognize the other abortion threads thus far, but they [bug] me expressly because they never really explore much more than person-hood.

Essentially this thread is a thread on all thing related to abortion in general, but humanity derails ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. We have other threads for that.

Back when we had Roe v. Wade, the Supreme court ultimately decided that until people could decide on things, they would just throw the issue to the wind. Before anyone points out Loki's fallacy, I would like to point out that I am aware of the following:

  • The pro-lifer usually defines life as dynamic (thus the fetus is alive, and they simply haven't learned enough to make a decision). Though the "soul" may sometimes be the reason.
  • The pro-choicer typically defines life as a currently sentient organism (and sometimes previously sentient, in response to certain analogies).

I believe that simply put, it is impossible to know which of these two definitions is better; so until a messenger descends from heaven and tells us who is right, we need to examine things from both angles and assumptions.

This thread won't be pointless as you may assume; there are several things of which we could count ourselves victorious:

  • The pro-life side will have more "ammunition" to convince women to freely (as in, without coercion) decide against abortion. One way or another, the unwanted child becoming "wanted" is the best way to avoid any hardship the woman may suffer.
  • The pro-choice side will have learned more about the specifics, and have informed the pro-life side about the difficulties that call for abortions.
  • Everyone will have (hopefully) enjoyed an interesting discussion. Some would call me morbid for being pro-life but enjoying the philosophical problems involved in abortion; but hey, it is interesting.
  • Anyone interested in taking action to help solve problems in real life can be more educated, thus they will be able to do more.


  • Depending on what we are talking about, it is necessary to assume either person-hood, or non-person-hood. The Violinist, for example.
  • When you are unclear as to the angle to take, you:
    • Assume person-hood, if you are pro-choice.
    • Assume non-person-hood, if you are pro-life.

If anyone complains that they "don't want" to participate because if either side is correct about the nature of the fetus, then the other has already lost, I would like to point out that sufficient reason could be given to abort the child, even if they are completely alive, human, and sentient. Lol, Anonym kills babies (there, now that I said it, no one else can).

Anyone who violates the rules will be eviscerated; further, anyone that uses emotionally charged language will be buried upside down in dirt with their feet sticking out, and said feet will be painted by napalm and set ablaze.


To start off discussion, I would like to ask public opinion on the aforementioned Violinist.

edited 21st Jan '11 10:40:09 AM by TheMightyAnonym

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD
Wanderhome The Joke-Master Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Healthy, deeply-felt respect for this here Shotgun
The Joke-Master
#2: Jan 21st 2011 at 10:57:08 AM

Um, I may just be dense, but your post seems to indicate that you want to discuss whether a fetus is a person, but not whether they possess humanity. Isn't that the same discussion?

As to the violinist thing, a) it seems like too much of a Fantastic Aesop type thing to take seriously and b) seems kind of stacked. By making the man a violinist and those who want to save him "music lovers", the argument for saving him becomes pre-emptively devalued with the insinuation that the only reason anyone could possibly care to save him, and therefore put the one person through nine months of severe discomfort, is because they like his music, not because of his intrinsic value as a person.

Further, by reducing the person to being bedridden for nine months, it seems that the author of the thought experiment is including greater discomfort than actual pregnancy.

TheMightyAnonym PARTY HARD!!!! from Pony Chan Since: Jan, 2010
PARTY HARD!!!!
#3: Jan 21st 2011 at 11:03:22 AM

No, I desire neither humanity nor person-hood nor anything of the sort discussed. Simply because there are a slew of other things worth talking about.

As for the violinist, perhaps one could spice it up in order to make it much more difficult?

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD
aishkiz Slayer of Threads from under the stairs Since: Nov, 2010
Slayer of Threads
#4: Jan 21st 2011 at 11:16:51 AM

The issue with the "violinist argument" (ignoring all the other nitpicks one's always tempted to do with hypotheticals) is that abortion is comparable not to unhooking the violinist from yourself but to giving him a lethal injection while he's attached to you. Abortion actively kills the foetus as opposed to merely letting it die. (Moreover, you are responsible for the foetus's existence, while you are not responsible for the violinist's coma — but an ethical obligation to provide life support or other reparations for someone you injure seems to exist only in my mind and may not be practicable in all cases.)

I am pro-choice, btw.

I have devised a most marvelous signature, which this signature line is too narrow to contain.
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#5: Jan 21st 2011 at 11:21:16 AM

Isn't the violinist only comparable to a rape pregnancy anyway?

aishkiz Slayer of Threads from under the stairs Since: Nov, 2010
Slayer of Threads
#6: Jan 21st 2011 at 11:29:55 AM

Eh, I've never liked the idea that the extension of abortion rights should be dependent on whether intercourse was consensual.

That seems offensive to both pro-lifers ("is the child responsible for the rape?") and pro-choicers ("why should consent to sex equal consent to pregnancy?"). I wonder if the third side proposing that kind of thing has its own name. "The Bastardslayers" seems somehow too fanciful. ,.<

I have devised a most marvelous signature, which this signature line is too narrow to contain.
neoYTPism Since: May, 2010
#7: Jan 21st 2011 at 11:34:37 AM

The point of the exception is that rape is a case where "if you didn't want the kid you shouldn't have chosen to have sex" clearly falls apart. @ aishkiz

However, it isn't necessarily the only case where the argument falls apart; it's more so a clear example of why it's not so simple. Yes, the fetus is the responsibility of the one carrying it, but why doesn't terminating the fetus before it has feelings or emotions or thoughts or consciousness (which probably don't develop until the 3rd trimester anyway putting aside superstitions like "souls") qualify as taking responsibility for it?

Beholderess from Moscow Since: Jun, 2010
#8: Jan 21st 2011 at 11:34:52 AM

Moreover, you are responsible for the foetus's existence, while you are not responsible for the violinist's coma — but an ethical obligation to provide life support or other reparations for someone you injure seems to exist only in my mind and may not be practicable in all cases.
True, but being responsible for injury and for making someone exist at all are rather different things. You've made someone's situation worse by injuring them, and they would not need support if you had not done that. But fetus certainly won't be better off without appearing in the womb at all, and woman did not make it dependant - it never had any other state and cannot possibly have.

Another thought about "killing vs letting die". This one does not quite agree with an assumption that in this case abortion is specifically killing. I've heard it said that left alone, fetus will eventually grow into baby just fine, but thing is, it is never "left alone", and cannot be. It requires active and direct support of mother's organism to survive, so if anything, it would be equivalent to a person born with deliberating condition that requires them to be on life support from birth.

edited 21st Jan '11 11:53:37 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#9: Jan 21st 2011 at 12:07:29 PM

@Anonym: thanks for an interesting thread! I thought I had heard everything on this debate, but the Violinist thing was a new one, and very thought provoking.

"As for the violinist, perhaps one could spice it up in order to make it much more difficult?"

OK- how about make the adult violinist the persons own infant child, and the child is dying because their parent accidently poisoned them. Thats as close an analogy as I can get to an abortion.

Now what conclusions do we come to?

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
deathjavu This foreboding is fa... from The internet, obviously Since: Feb, 2010
This foreboding is fa...
#10: Jan 21st 2011 at 12:58:38 PM

  • Digs through old abortion thread

Ah, here it is. My point that I've never seen properly addressed in any abortion debate, and it has nothing to do with the alive-ness of a fetus.

Anti-abortion laws are unenforceable.

Now what do I mean by that? Well, two things specifically:

  • One is that outlawing abortion (as it was before) turns out a lot like prohibition: lots of underground practice with significantly less safety. And while "people will do it anyways" is not always an appropriate argument against laws, but in situations where enforcement is impossible it applies quite readily. Ideals are great but governments operate in reality.

  • And Two, the real killer-what penalty do you enforce on women getting abortions?

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.
aishkiz Slayer of Threads from under the stairs Since: Nov, 2010
Slayer of Threads
#11: Jan 21st 2011 at 3:08:03 PM

Beholderess wrote:

Another thought about "killing vs letting die". This one does not quite agree with an assumption that in this case abortion is specifically killing. I've heard it said that left alone, fetus will eventually grow into baby just fine, but thing is, it is never "left alone", and cannot be. It requires active and direct support of mother's organism to survive, so if anything, it would be equivalent to a person born with deliberating condition that requires them to be on life support from birth.

"Killing vs letting die" is usually brought up because most abortion procedures don't remove the foetus alive to die outside the womb; they actively kill it inside the womb (through pills or injection or whatever).

deathjavu wrote:

My point that I've never seen properly addressed in any abortion debate

I've seen it addressed in an abortion debate. "We should also legalise rape, since it can't be prevented and when it's illegal rapists just perform dangerous back-alley rapes that could harm them."  * As for a penalty... if the foetus is considered to be a person, the abortionist would be a murderer, and the woman an accessory to murder.

edited 21st Jan '11 3:09:48 PM by aishkiz

I have devised a most marvelous signature, which this signature line is too narrow to contain.
joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#12: Jan 21st 2011 at 3:11:44 PM

[up][up]The punishment should fit the crime...

edited 21st Jan '11 3:12:11 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid
feotakahari Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer from Looking out at the city Since: Sep, 2009
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
#13: Jan 21st 2011 at 3:24:45 PM

^ Nine months?

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
EnglishIvy Since: Aug, 2011
#14: Jan 21st 2011 at 3:33:15 PM

This abortion debate isn't different at all! sad

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#15: Jan 21st 2011 at 3:38:30 PM

^ Yeah I'm not sure why this is gonna go anywhere different.

EnglishIvy Since: Aug, 2011
#16: Jan 21st 2011 at 3:38:58 PM

Well, it's in OTC instead of Yack Fest, for one... tongue

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#17: Jan 21st 2011 at 3:40:01 PM

Which just means no potentially fun derails to keep people sane.

edited 21st Jan '11 3:40:36 PM by Pykrete

LilPaladinSuzy Chaotic New Troll from 4chan Since: Jul, 2010
Chaotic New Troll
#18: Jan 21st 2011 at 3:44:27 PM

inb4 "If you get pregnant when you don't want to, it's your fault for not keeping your legs shut."

Yeah, and if you get gunned down in the street, it's your fault for not wearing a bulletproof vest. tongue

Would you kindly click my dragons?
storyyeller More like giant cherries from Appleloosa Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
More like giant cherries
#19: Jan 21st 2011 at 3:50:32 PM

Yeah, the OP makes no sense whatsoever. It's not clear what exactly we're supposed to discuss. It's like trying to have a debate about teaching evolution without mentioning science.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
feotakahari Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer from Looking out at the city Since: Sep, 2009
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
#20: Jan 21st 2011 at 4:08:29 PM

I do think the abortion debate is weird, but only because liberals and conservatives flip their arguments. "Animals are cute and innocent!" is used against animal testing, but it seems like the same people don't take "Babies are cute and innocent!" as a valid anti-abortion argument. Meanwhile, the people who say "People will still break the law to get illegal guns!" find it ridiculous that "People will still break the law to get illegal abortions!" I mean, it might make sense if these people appeared to have actually put thought into why the situations are different, but it seems like a lot of them are just thinking "This is my party's line, so it must be right" and not even bothering with the parallels.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
EnglishIvy Since: Aug, 2011
#21: Jan 21st 2011 at 4:15:11 PM

I'm a liberal, and I'm not too happy with the attention given towards animal rights being contingent on how cute and cuddly they appear on camera.

BlackHumor Since: Jan, 2001
#22: Jan 21st 2011 at 4:41:02 PM

"Animals are cute and cuddly" is not an argument, it's a different kind of persuasion tactic.

Otherwise feo's bottom line is correct.

CommandoDude Since: Jun, 2010
#23: Jan 21st 2011 at 4:47:36 PM

"you want to discuss whether a fetus is a person, but not whether they possess humanity. Isn't that the same discussion?"

No.

As for the thought experiment, it's dumb in its entirety. First off, there's no reason why "being hooked up to the violinist" would save him, or bring him out of a coma. Contriving such circumstances makes the entire premise flawed from the beginning. But, for the sake of argument, your rights are inherently violated within the situation at hand anyways. During conception a fetus is produced by a biological reaction, which is completely different from being unknowingly forced into the other situation.

If anything, the whole thought experiment is a better analogy of if rape victims deserve to abort.

The "experiment" also fails to draw parallels between the medical complications and lasting affects of actual pregnancy.

edited 21st Jan '11 4:55:45 PM by CommandoDude

BlackHumor Since: Jan, 2001
#24: Jan 21st 2011 at 5:10:48 PM

The violinist example doesn't have anything to do with rape; even if you agreed to let the music lovers use your body in the first place, you could still withdraw consent in the middle and get up.

storyyeller More like giant cherries from Appleloosa Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
More like giant cherries
#25: Jan 21st 2011 at 5:19:13 PM

So is the real topic of this thread the validity of contrived ethical thought experiments or what?

I've got a good one. There's a spy on your ship. He is afraid of torture and will confess instantly. Unfortunately, if you don't figure out who it is, he will blow up the super bowl in an hour. Also, everyone on the ship is identical and is sitting on a traintrack. Do you throw the spy onto the lever or not?

edited 21st Jan '11 5:20:53 PM by storyyeller

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

Total posts: 79
Top